Mic Comparisons on Acoustic Guitar

[jyork13]

I was thinking of selling a mic but couldn't decide which one. So I decided to A/B the two mics. The A/B turned into a comparison of 8 different mics. I decided to post them for grins.

Signal chain: Taylor 614ce --> Mic --> Vintech 473 --> Apogee Rosetta --> Digi002r

Each mic was approx. 10" from the neck pointed where the neck meets the body.

Mics (in random order): Neumann U87, AT 4040, AKG C3000B, MXL V67, AT Pro 37, SM57, Rode K2, Rode NT5

Here's the files:

http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic1.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic2.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic3.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic4.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic5.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic6.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic7.mp3
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/Mic8.mp3

Key
http://yorkstudios.net/MicTest/MicKey.txt

I have to admit I was both surprised and dissapointed by this test.

[kid deluxe]

Thanks for that.
I take mic 6..

[mljung]

First listen on headphones [HD580] I preferred 5 followed by 6.

Very interesting comparison, some samples did not sound very good []

[jyork13]

Originally Posted by mljung

First listen on headphones [HD580] I preferred 5 followed by 6.

Very interesting comparison, some samples did not sound very good []

Which is why I was surprised and dissapointed!

I think the $99 mic blew out the $2800. What's up with that?

[Squawk]

I didn't listen to these clips, but Just goes to show that it depends on the instrument and the room and placement, and cheaper mics can sometimes shine depending on the situation.

Also, the responses aren't all that surprising, as I generally prefer a pencil on acoustic, and you can't count out an nt5 or an nt4 for this application.
I've got great results with nt5's on acoustic guitar. An LDC alone is often not the best match for this task IMO.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by jyork13

Which is why I was surprised and dissapointed!

I think the $99 mic blew out the $2800. What's up with that?

I just realized that you posted the details about the mics - maybe I should consider buying a V67, quite a surprise..!

[Fabi]

I like the NT5 best followed by the V67

The Neumann is just not right for the Job, but it is outstanding in a lot of other situations.

I agree that on acoustic git. most people will prefere small membranes. But it depends sooooooo much on the instrument, especially with acoustic guitar!!!

Try 10 different guitars and the Neumann will sound best on one of them.

So if you feel like using the Neumann, swap guitarrists to fit the mic

[Domene]

I liked 1 and 4. The 1 a lit bit more than 4.

I was surprised by how different my taste is from the others that posted.

[slick0]

I liked 6, 5, 1, in that order. Though, I do feel some of the other mics (notably 4) could have sounded better with different positioning.

[Digitar]

Another one for 6.

[jyork13]

Originally Posted by slick0

I liked 6, 5, 1, in that order. Though, I do feel some of the other mics (notably 4) could have sounded better with different positioning.

I agree some could have sounded better with positioning. It tried very hard to point the mics to exactly the same position.

That said, we all know how the slightest movement changes the tone. It was a fun exercise anyway.

[dreamsongs]

There are some weird resonances in all the samples which lead me to believe that the room sound and reflections are playing a big part in this...

[NathanEldred]

5 & 6 were painfully bright and artifical sounding.

2, 3, & 7 were the most natural and smooth (with a bit of extension in the top on 3 & 7 but not harsh/bright as 5/6).

[jyork13]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

There are some weird resonances in all the samples which lead me to believe that the room sound and reflections are playing a big part in this...

You have a good point. This was a pretty quick comparison sitting in the control room. I may have gotten reflections off my desk.

If I have Time I'll repeat in a better room.

[jyork13]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

5 & 6 were painfully bright and artifical sounding.

2, 3, & 7 were the most natural and smooth (with a bit of extension in the top on 3 & 7 but not harsh/bright as 5/6).

I couldn't have said it better myself. No, seriously, I couldn't...

[haryy]

It seems that the best mics capture these resonances better. That's why they sound worse!
Hey comb filtering is difficult to record with a cheap mic.

[sethmeister]

number 2 and maybe 3 struck me as the most honest and uncolored though 3 seemed to have a touch more detail and a slightly bigger sound. 8 was a bit smeared and had a honky midrange sound. several of the others had painfully bright harsh top ends. 1 seemed really artificial and hyped at both high end and low to low mid.

[jyork13]

Originally Posted by sethmeister

number 2 and maybe 3 struck me as the most honest and uncolored though 3 seemed to have a touch more detail and a slightly bigger sound. 8 was a bit smeared and had a honky midrange sound. several of the others had painfully bright harsh top ends. 1 seemed really artificial and hyped at both high end and low to low mid.

Ahh, but the honky midrange sound of #8 sure does shine on guitar cabs! thumbsup

[Daniel Antix]

1 and 2 were my favourites.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by haryy

It seems that the best mics capture these resonances better. That's why they sound worse!
Hey comb filtering is difficult to record with a cheap mic.

[kafka]

There's some phasing that goes on in the U87 clip in the beginning that throws me off. Did you move, or did something move in the room when you were recording? I don't think the U87 is inappropriate for this application, but it's hard to tell. I do think it sounds better than it's getting credit for in this thread.

I think that because the #2 and #3 are both darker and lower in level than #1, there's some degree of "disappointment factor" going on here with the assessments. I know I felt that when when listening to the clips in order the first time through. When I go back and carefully level adjust, none of these sound all that bad, except maybe the SM57.

One thing, though, there's this high frequency resonance going on in every single one of these clips, even the darkest ones. It's a constant frequency. It's very piercing, almost like a glockenspiel. I'm sure you can hear it. It really needs to be tamed if you're going to record in that room.

Thanks for posting.

[CassidyGT]

Here are my notes and my picks as I heard them. I didn't know which mics were what until after:

#1 - Too bright and spitty
#2 - Mellow, Good bottom
#3 - Nice lows, mellow, nice punch
#4 - midrangy, no bottom
#5 - Articulate, but a bit more treble than I'd like
#6 - Nasty, harsh
#7 - top endy, spitty
#8 - midrangy, no bottom, highs not smooth but not harsh either

I picked #2 and #3 which turned out to be the AT4040 and U87. I'm not surprised at all at these picks. Confirms the impressions I had prior. #5 (MXL v67) was the big surprise for me. Not a bad mic at all for like $80. And of course the AT4040 remains one of the best values out there IMO.

Thanks for the shootout!!!thumbsup

[amishsixstringe]

Pretty much the same thing everyone else said. I made a list before checking the key. Not guessing the mic, but just making sonic notes. I'm happy that I seemed to hate the right mics. I hated the AKG the most, then the 2 Rodes, (The 57 was actually nicer than those 3), I liked the U87 and the Marshall. Cool post. Thanks!

Neil

[nstone]

Hi and thanks for the comparison!

here are my notes

- Mic 1: artificial highs, not a warm and full body, cheap sounding
ok Mic 2: more body, quite natural, not a very high resolution, a little boxy/resonant, no overhyped highs
ok Mic 3: warm, natural mids, nice but not to much highs, a bit too much body/resonances/boomy
ok Mic 4: finer resolution, more highs, but also thinner than 3 or 5
ok+ Mic 5: great vibe for acoustic overall, but a little bit artifical sounding
+ Mic 6: highest resolution, good string attack, a little bit too much highs
- Mic 7: I don't like that at all, sounds cheap and artificial, boxy
- Mic 8: boxy, midrangy, low resolution, not so nice highs


after some reading and comparisons for myself I have chosen a Shure SM81 for my acoustic last year. It has a great natural sound with good resolution but no overhyped highs which feels great for strumming and picking without much or even no EQ.

that very good comparison was the reason I registered at gearslutz for my first post because I really appreciate that kind of effort. That really helps to give orientation in gear and real hearing education, also for part time hobby musicians like me.

[bambony]

I know this is an an old thread but it was bumped by the last post so I checked in as it was fun!

My notes before reading the key

1. Slightly metallic and confused mid
2. Mellow but slightly plummy
3. Less plummy and a nice balance
4. Great balance - my fave
5. Too honky and bright
6. Simply awful
7. strident and articulate but too bright and thin - not suited to a bright guitar
8. unremarkable but not thin like others here

In order of preference:
K2
87
4040
V67
C3000B
57
Pro37
And way worse than the others NT5

Tony

[freudes]

Well, it depends on your music taste, of course.

I love the mic#1 because it sounds like Jim O Rourke guitars and most of the acoustic guitars from the middle of the nineties postfolk.

Mic#3 is ok but not more, and mic#4 is the most "good sounding guitar" for everybody i guess.

All the others are awfully metallic and harsh

[carlventis]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

5 & 6 were painfully bright and artifical sounding.

2, 3, & 7 were the most natural and smooth (with a bit of extension in the top on 3 & 7 but not harsh/bright as 5/6).

and I just bought a Brand new at4040. its going to be fun to get a great acoustic sound. Thanks for your review, it was to the point.